Delisted #20: Henry Slattery - Leaving to "pursue other opportunities"

[yaco55]

Slattery

Agree with Ben that Slatts attacked the ball more often - And more importantly he left his opponent to attack the contest. Struggled in one-on-one battles.

Happy with Hibberd - Was more prudent in his attack on the ball - especially in the air.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: 20. Henry Slattery

Hibberd was really, really s**t though? Masses of turnovers?

 

[efcboy]

Re: 20. Henry Slattery

He's shocking overhead and always has been; he's a pretty bloody good stopper man-on-man at ground level and always has been, and he's a decent enough but not damaging kick. THE END.

I don't know why they keep isolating him on guys who will do him in the air. Just about all his best form has been playing 60m+ out from goal and absolutely all of his worst form has been isolated in the goal square one-out with the ball kicked up high.

its the opposition coaches who isolate him instructing their players to do so. as soon as slattery goes on to an opponent most opposition teams make this player their go-to small forward.

a small defender needs to be able to cope with this role of being isolated or the opposition coaches will exploit it all the time - which they often do.

 

[efcboy]

Re: 20. Henry Slattery

The man on the mark would've been on the goal line.

He was definitely not "behind" - as in, going towards goals - him, since he was in the 3rd row of the stands.

the man on the mark? my memory was that this occurred from general play and not even from a mark it was that absurd. pretty sure it was the same goal umpire who didn't pay the goal to dell'olio - the AFL must have saved some bucks and got someone from the WC cheersquad to goal umpire...

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Hibberd was really, really s**t though? Masses of turnovers?

Hibberd was in Long territory of atrociousness.

 

[Slappery]

Lord Nich, do agree.
Would be better if he had 3-4 more, then we could just play him GWS & GC and get him over the line.
Good footballing bloodstock IIRC, at least a couple of his brothers play/played SANFL.

Ben - agree. That was supposedly the knock, and it did look improved.

They all played SANFL Football..and they were held in very high regard at West Adelaide.

Chris did a knee (more than once), which ended his footy career, sad because he was a very good footballer. (bloody good cricketer too, but his knee destroyed that too)

James could not shake persistent hamstrings..ending his SANFL career, played in QLD for some good coin while studying.

Charles was the most successful, leaving Westies and travelling Central Districts every day to train and play....2 hour round trip..won premierships..landed a job in melb, did his knee, came back to SA..central still wanted him even thou his was struggling...unfortunately for Charles he wasn't quick enough for AFL.

Just a brief run down..the bloodline is good and they mass produce boys.....James and Charles have had boys...3 of them....get him too 100..stud him out lol

 

[Rack Watts]

Made Garrick Weedon look like Mark LeCras

 

[gO_bOmBeRz]

Would rather have Mark Baguley in the side over Slattery already.

 

[Childish Gambino]

Hibberd was in Long territory of atrociousness.

Showed good endeavour but that was all really.

 

[Slattery_20]

There was a bit to like about Hibberd but he was far from good.

 

[TheDon35]

Hibberd clearly ahead of Slattery but hardly a lock for a starting spot. We're yet to nail this spot.

I think Hank is way down the pecking order as it currently stands.

A lock down small back that has difficulty locking down, doesn't read the game well, has ordinary decition making and kicks poorly is always going to struggle.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

No question he's down the pecking order.

Tbh, I though Baguley was really impressive on Sunday, and he's definitely got the potential to be our number one shutdown small defender and play alongside Dempsey, Jetta and Heppell.

If there's one thing Slattery should be used as an example for, it's his kicking. Hardingham, do what Slatts does. You're an atrocious kick, so don't try and hit a target like Fletch would, just hit a 25-30m target and let them hit the difficult target.

 

[Tassieboy]

Why does this not have the players tag?

 

[yaco55]

Think Hibberd will lock up the small defender's position.

Now that he is learning that small defenders dont indiscriminately attack the ball in the air.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Why does this not have the players tag?

Veiled criticism?

 

[Kong]

Whoops.

 

[The House]

Re: 20. Henry Slattery

What does the ball and/or mark have to do with it? Just interested.

Well the the ball and/or mark has to do with everything - it was all in one incident and lasted about a second and a half - Hank spilled a mark and rather than pressure the opponent who was about to straighten up for a shot on goal, he chose to fake being hurt by holding his face when no contact was even made to that area .... the umpire didn't buy it. That's what happened.

....maybe i'm missing the point of the question??

 

[The House]

its the opposition coaches who isolate him instructing their players to do so. as soon as slattery goes on to an opponent most opposition teams make this player their go-to small forward.

a small defender needs to be able to cope with this role of being isolated or the opposition coaches will exploit it all the time - which they often do.

Made Garrick Weedon look like Mark LeCras

Would rather have Mark Baguley in the side over Slattery already.

Hibberd clearly ahead of Slattery but hardly a lock for a starting spot. We're yet to nail this spot.

I think Hank is way down the pecking order as it currently stands.

A lock down small back that has difficulty locking down, doesn't read the game well, has ordinary decition making and kicks poorly is always going to struggle.

No question he's down the pecking order.

Tbh, I though Baguley was really impressive on Sunday, and he's definitely got the potential to be our number one shutdown small defender and play alongside Dempsey, Jetta and Heppell.

If there's one thing Slattery should be used as an example for, it's his kicking. Hardingham, do what Slatts does. You're an atrocious kick, so don't try and hit a target like Fletch would, just hit a 25-30m target and let them hit the difficult target.

Think Hibberd will lock up the small defender's position.

Now that he is learning that small defenders dont indiscriminately attack the ball in the air.

I seem to remember a couple of years back a few on here arguing 'til they were blue in the face when I said Hank was not up to AFL standard and that we could EASILY find better back pockets playing VFL......

....now after all the talk of him being a good lock down defender, a lock to be our next tagger and how highly rated he is around the league, it seems we all agree that Jimmy and the boys have done the right thing by recruiting a couple of back pockets from the VFL to take his place.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: 20. Henry Slattery

Well the the ball and/or mark has to do with everything - it was all in one incident and lasted about a second and a half - Hank spilled a mark and rather than pressure the opponent who was about to straighten up for a shot on goal, he chose to fake being hurt by holding his face when no contact was even made to that area .... the umpire didn't buy it. That's what happened.

....maybe i'm missing the point of the question??

All I said was "he should have got the free". Which he should have, he copped the inside of the swinging arm right across the gob.

I don't really know where you've got all this other stuff from.
Clearly he should've taken the mark. Clearly he shouldn't have gone down. Clearly he should've then applied a perfect tackle, won the free, run down the field and kicked 5 goals at one time.
NONE of that affects whether he should have got the free or not.

You're the only one who constantly feels the need to argue all of this.

 

[Kong]

Re: 20. Henry Slattery

A Slattery thread just wouldn't be the same without Ben and The House screaming bloody mary.

 

[efcboy]

I seem to remember a couple of years back a few on here arguing 'til they were blue in the face when I said Hank was not up to AFL standard and that we could EASILY find better back pockets playing VFL......

....now after all the talk of him being a good lock down defender, a lock to be our next tagger and how highly rated he is around the league, it seems we all agree that Jimmy and the boys have done the right thing by recruiting a couple of back pockets from the VFL to take his place.

i've copped my fair share of criticism for suggesting h.slattery is not up to it for a while now...the henry slattery effect!

 

[Ben the Gooner]

i've copped my fair share of criticism for suggesting h.slattery is not up to it for a while now...the henry slattery effect!

The Jake Carlisle effect.

 

[Slattery_20]

I always said we should recruit others for his spot.

Just like I think we should recruit other tall backs, other small forwards, etc etc etc, for depth & for competition.

The difference is, I thought it would've been a massive, massive mistake to put a bloke like Houli in his spot for no other reason than "not being Hank".

 

[The House]

Re: 20. Henry Slattery

What does the ball and/or mark have to do with it? Just interested.

All I said was "he should have got the free". Which he should have, he copped the inside of the swinging arm right across the gob.

I don't really know where you've got all this other stuff from.
Clearly he should've taken the mark. Clearly he shouldn't have gone down. Clearly he should've then applied a perfect tackle, won the free, run down the field and kicked 5 goals at one time.
NONE of that affects whether he should have got the free or not.

You're the only one who constantly feels the need to argue all of this.

I'm not actually arguing about anything - as seen in the first quote (above) you asked me a question and I answered it as best I could....the part you're missing is that he DID NOT "recieve a swinging arm right across the gob."

He dived and held his face and acted like an Italian soccer player rather than attempt to pressure a guy who was about to shoot on goal (who was ultimately successful btw), but no contact was made to "the gob".....

Whilst there was minimal contact to the back of/lower side of the neck, there certainly was no contact anywhere near upper jaw/cheeckbone area the Hank pretended to be hit in.

The contact that was actually made was one of those that I put into the category of technically a free kick for slipping just above the shoulder, but of a nature that no umpire would ever pay it, even in the nab cup....

...despite how you saw Hank carry on, there was really not too much in the actual contact.

Having said that, I'm not sure I could really care less about one decision given in a practice match anyways.....the decision making of the players in these games interests me a whole lot more.

 

[efcboy]

I always said we should recruit others for his spot.

Just like I think we should recruit other tall backs, other small forwards, etc etc etc, for depth & for competition.

The difference is, I thought it would've been a massive, massive mistake to put a bloke like Houli in his spot for no other reason than "not being Hank".

the good thing now though is that the club has recruited well in this area to make hank redundant IMO. Bringing Heppell, Hibberd, Browne, Long, Baguley, Hardingham etc all in recently means we are a lot better in this area than when we were when Houli played some matches there.